WA: Gun seen through window that was suddenly moved was exigent circumstance

Officers had exigent circumstances on the unusual facts of this case that a stolen pressurized tank was found next to defendant’s house, and a gun was seen through a window. Then the gun was moved. Officers could reasonably fear the weapon. The facts were “unusual” and “extraordinary.” State v. Smith, 165 Wn.2d 511, 199 P.3d 386 (2009) (dissent here):

¶18 Under the extraordinary facts of this case, the responding officers identified a legitimate threat to officer and public safety sufficient to constitute an exigent circumstance. Upon arriving at the property, they found a stolen tanker truck parked next to the house, pressure filled with 1,000 gallons of an extremely dangerous chemical. Presumably, someone hiding in the house had stolen the tanker, in a criminal act serious enough to warrant FBI involvement. The officers saw a firearm through the window of the house. By the time Smith and Breuer had emerged from the house, the firearm had disappeared, and Smith and Breuer did not have it.

¶19 The trial court made a finding of fact that Detective Gonzales was concerned that a person with the missing gun inside the house would shoot the pressurized tank of anhydrous ammonia, causing a grave health risk for all those in the vicinity. He was also concerned that a person hiding in the house would shoot directly at the officers.

¶20 There was no pretext here. The officers’ actions were consistent with their stated purpose of preventing the risks to themselves and the public. They looked only in spaces where a person could hide, and they confiscated only the missing gun.

¶21 Under the unusual facts presented here, most notably the combination of large quantities of a toxic chemical and the missing firearm, the officers’ search falls under the “officer and public safety” prong of the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement. The trial court was correct in refusing to suppress the evidence gained in connection with the search.

Defendant was stopped for a windshield obstruction, and the officer a few minutes later said that he was going to issue a warning ticket. Additional questions, however, were revealing additional suspicions, and that justified more questions. United States v. Perez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106819 (D. Neb. December 2, 2008).*

Trial court’s finding of voluntariness was supported by the videotape of the stop, which was purely conversational and not intimidating. United States v. Gonzalez, 308 Fed. Appx. 794 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

A murder-suicide note police independently were aware of that was seen being read by defendant’s wife was in plain view when they were on the premises by consent. Its seizure could not be successfully challenged by the defendant, so defense counsel could not have been ineffective for not challenging its seizure. Lynch v. State, 2 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.